{"id":352388,"date":"2023-10-13T10:24:52","date_gmt":"2023-10-13T15:24:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/criminal\/criminal-rights\/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html"},"modified":"2023-10-13T10:24:52","modified_gmt":"2023-10-13T15:24:52","slug":"the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/criminal\/criminal-rights\/the-fourth-amendment-and-the-exclusionary-rule.html","title":{"rendered":"The Fourth Amendment and the ‘Exclusionary Rule’"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

The Fourth Amendment and the 'Exclusionary Rule'<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Christie Nicholson, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Rhonda Earhart, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n

The exclusionary rule prevents evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches and seizures from being used in court. This rule aims to deter police misconduct by ensuring that illegally obtained evidence cannot benefit the prosecution.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

The\u00a0Fourth Amendment<\/a>\u00a0to the U.S. Constitution prohibits police officers from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires law enforcement to have a valid warrant or\u00a0probable cause<\/a>. But what happens if a police officer performs a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and finds incriminating evidence? That’s when the exclusionary rule comes into play.<\/p>\n

Read on to learn how this rule developed and why it is essential for protecting your rights and deterring police misconduct. If you are facing criminal charges, you can also contact a criminal law attorney<\/a> near you. An attorney can assess the evidence in your case to determine if police obtained it lawfully. This can be pivotal to your defense strategy.<\/p>\n

The Development of the Exclusionary Rule<\/h2>\n

When first ratified, the Fourth Amendment was of little value to criminal defendants<\/a>. The framers of the U.S. Constitution were not concerned with criminal defendants’ rights. Until the early 20th century, evidence seized by law enforcement in violation of the Fourth Amendment was still admissible in court. The court’s position changed in 1914.<\/p>\n

In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically changed the Fourth Amendment when it handed down its decision in\u00a0Weeks v. United States<\/i><\/a>. This case involved the appeal of a defendant convicted based on evidence a federal agent seized without the issuance of a warrant or other constitutional justification. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction, creating the exclusionary rule. In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court made the exclusionary rule applicable to the states with its decision in\u00a0Mapp v. Ohio<\/i><\/a>.<\/p>\n

The court in\u00a0Mapp v. Ohio<\/i>\u00a0also confirmed that the exclusionary rule applies to state law through the Fourteenth Amendment. Some states, such as New York, offer even greater protection than the federal government on the exclusionary rule.<\/p>\n

Not all countries follow the exclusionary rule. Under the common law, jurisdictions could set their own rules about the admissibility of tainted evidence. For example, in\u00a0England<\/a>, the courts follow an inclusionary rule. Prosecutors can use evidence regardless of whether law enforcement officials got it illegally.<\/p>\n

Why Do We Have the Exclusionary Rule?<\/h2>\n

The courts created the exclusionary rule to deter\u00a0police misconduct<\/a>. It enables courts to exclude incriminating evidence from trial if the defendant can prove the police obtained the evidence in violation of a constitutional right.<\/p>\n

The rule allows defendants to challenge the\u00a0admissibility of evidence<\/a>\u00a0by bringing a pre-trial motion to suppress the evidence. If the court allows the evidence and the jury votes to convict, the defendant can challenge the trial court’s decision to deny the motion to suppress on appeal.<\/p>\n

If the defendant succeeds on appeal, they can get a new trial. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that\u00a0double jeopardy<\/a>\u00a0principles do not bar another trial because the trial court’s error had nothing to do with the defendant’s guilt or innocence. Nonetheless, obtaining a conviction in the second trial would be significantly more challenging if the\u00a0evidence suppressed<\/a>\u00a0by the exclusionary rule is vital to the prosecution’s case.<\/p>\n

Companion to the Exclusionary Rule: Fruit of the Poisonous Tree<\/h2>\n

The “fruit of the poisonous tree<\/a>” doctrine is a legal concept related to the exclusionary rule. Under this doctrine, a court may exclude evidence seized in an unlawful search and seizure and other evidence derived from the illegal search.<\/p>\n

For example, suppose the police arrest a suspect for\u00a0kidnapping<\/a>, and the suspect later confesses to the crime. If a court later declares that the arrest was unconstitutional, the judge must also rule that the confession is inadmissible. The defendant’s criminal law attorney will argue that police denied their client due process as a result of the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The attorney may also be able to prove that they violated the defendant’s Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.<\/p>\n

Common Examples of Tainted Evidence<\/h2>\n

When law enforcement recovers illegally obtained evidence, the court will deem it “tainted” evidence. Tainted evidence includes any physical evidence, DNA, audio recording, contraband, or other evidence taken during a warrantless search<\/a>. The judge will order suppression of evidence unless law enforcement officers can prove that a good faith exception applies in a particular case.<\/p>\n

Some of the more common examples of tainted evidence include:<\/p>\n